The Connecticut Law Tribune reports on a breach of contract
claim by a daughter against her father, who failed (as promised) to pay her college
tuition.The Law Tribune reports:

So consider the odd case of Dana
Soderberg, who went to court to force her father to live up to a deal to pay
her tuition at Southern Connecticut State University. Hamden family lawyer
Renee C. Berman handled the lawsuit for Soderberg.

"Nothing that I've researched
has shown any cases like this and hopefully there won't be anymore because it's
a sad situation," said Berman.

Dana came from what is perhaps an
all-too-typical family situation. Her parents, Howard and Deborah Soderberg, of
Stratford divorced in 2004. Upon splitting, they agreed that Howard, a property
developer, would be responsible for the education costs for their three
children, Dana, Amanda and Erik.

Dana's experience had evidently
taught her that her father had a tendency not to follow through with paying for
things. So she persuaded him the following year to enter into a written
contract obligating him to pay her college tuition until she was 25, along with
other school expenses such as textbooks, and her car insurance.

As part of the agreement, Dana
would make an effort to apply for student loans and Howard Soderberg would pay
off those loans. Co-signing the agreement was Howard's sister, Patricia.

Howard delivered on his word
through March 24, 2007. But when it came time for Dana to begin her senior year
at Southern Connecticut, Howard Soderberg refused to pay the bills. And so Dana
got a $20,000 loan to pay for her last year of college, with her mother
co-signing.

Dana graduated and slapped her father with a breach of
contract action in New Haven Superior Court.The Law Tribune continues:

The father represented himself in a
two-day trial. He argued that Dana breached their agreement by not making
reasonable efforts to apply for student loans, by failing to attend classes
full time and by not providing him with receipts for tuition and other
school-related expenses.

Howard Soderberg also filed a
counterclaim alleging that his daughter dropped courses and pocketed the
refunds. He also said she spent money that was supposed to go toward textbooks
on personal items.

Attorney Berman said Dana was an
art major and needed expensive art supplies for her classes. She said her
father was typically late in making tuition payments, which often forced Dana
to drop out of certain classes.

Judge Trial Referee William L.
Hadden Jr. issued a written opinion earlier this month, ruling that father and
daughter had a legitimate contract, that Dana proved to be the more credible
party in the lawsuit, and that the father had breached the agreement.

"The plaintiff has proven that
she has performed all of her obligations as set forth …" wrote Hadden.
"The defendants have failed to prove the claims set forth in their special
defenses and in Howard's counterclaim."

Berman said damages totaled around
$47,000, including the loan, interest, attorney fees and missed car insurance
payments. Berman did not anticipate an appeal.

"They just don't have a
relationship," Berman said of Dana and her father. "It has to be weak
to begin with if you enter into that agreement.

Berman was struck by Howard
Soderberg's emotions -- or lack thereof. "Here his daughter's bringing him
to court and there's no sadness, no remorse that his daughter was in this
situation having to sue him."

Berman said Dana's father still
maintains "somewhat" of a relationship with his other children and
has paid for their education.

Family lawyer Thomas D. Colin, of
Schoonmaker, George & Colin, P.C. in Greenwich doesn't foresee a rash of
young students suing their parents in light of this opinion.

"I've never seen that at
all," said Colin. "I don't know how many kids can get their parents
to sign contracts with them so I don't know how much that would show up."

Berman, whose client is now a
teacher, agreed with that assessment.

"I think this is just a
limited situation," Berman said. "This was her way of assuring
college would get paid. I think it's a very unique situation. It's not a
typical relationship."

The tale raises interesting issues about consideration and (perhaps) promissory estoppel.I have been
unable to locate the written decision – feel free to send it along if you have
a copy. (Thanks!)

Comments

Calabro v Calabro, 15 SW3d 873 (Tenn. App. 1999), reversed summary judgment for defendant on a claim by a student against her father based on a promise to pay her college tuition and living expenses if she attended Vanderbilt University. The court found a possible claim under both contract and promissory estoppel grounds, applying the benefit/detriment standard to the consideration issue.

Sid DeLong

Posted by: Sid DeLong | Aug 6, 2010 4:25:04 PM

Post a comment

Name

Email

URL

Remember personal info?

Warning

If you do not complete your comment within 15 minutes, it will be lost. For longer comments, you may want to draft them in Word or another program and then copy them into this comment box.